You have already read your free article this month.A quality publication is not cheap to produce. Subscribe today and support The American Interest—only $2.99/month!Already a subscriber? Log in to make this banner go away.
The old foreign policy “schools” debate is exhausted. We need a new synthesis.
Recent events in Ukraine, Syria, and Iran exposed once again a deep divide in American policymakers’ approach to world affairs. President Obama hails his determined diplomacy as the vindicator of events, bringing Iran and Syria to the negotiating table and isolating Russia for practicing 19th-century military intervention in Ukraine. Throughout, Obama keeps the potential use of force under, if not off, the table, ruling out any military options untilnegotiations fail.
His critics argue just as strenuously that Obama’s diplomacy does little more than buy time for aggressive nations like Iran and Russia to accomplish their objectives outside negotiations by...
Subscribers Only
You have already read your free article this month.
Please log in to read the rest of this article
Henry R. Nau is professor of political science and international affairs at the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, and author, most recently, of Conservative Internationalism: Armed Diplomacy Under Jefferson, Polk, Truman, and Reagan (Princeton 2013).